I think I disproved God. Well… not really, but I'm off to an interesting start.

This is the only argument against God that I have personally created, more or less from scratch without having to rework some previous argument. I think I'm on to something. Anyway, given the truth of P2, (defending monism will be quite a large project in itself) is this a strong argument against the existence of God? Hopefully, I haven't embarrassed myself.

P1: All things being held equal, a simple hypothesis is much more likely to be true than a complex hypothesis. (The Law of Parsimony)

P2: Monism is, by its very nature, a simpler hypothesis than dualism, and it has at least the same explanatory scope as dualism to explain the nature of minds (i.e., evidence would suggest that mental properties are best explained by reference to their connection with the physical brain, and there is no known mental phenomenon which must necessarily be subject to a dualist explanation).

P3: If monism is true, then dualism is false. (if A then ~B)

P4: Monism is very likely to be true. (from 1 and 2)

P5: Therefore, dualism very likely to be false. (from 3 and 4)

P6: Therefore, it is very unlikely that any being with a mind can exist without a physical body. (from 5)

P7: God is described as a being with a mind that exists without a physical body.

C: Thus, other evidence held equal, God is very unlikely to exist. (from 6 and 7)

Copyright 5/16/10 Jacob Freeman

Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.

Monistic idealism: the only substance(s) that exist are mind(s). Certainly it wouldn't be implausible to think on idealism mind(s) can exist without the body.

I'm not too sure about neutral monism as I believe the philosophy says that the only kind of substance(s) that exist are neither mental nor physical. Maybe a case can be made.

I'm just pointing out that the conclusion would not come easily at all even granting your most controversial premise. But I would hotly contest p2 in any case. :)

If you want to debate it you can always send me a challenge. :)

I read you're dualism debate the other night (very impressive; it's kind of what inspired me to create this argument), and I would certainly want to challenge you on this, after I do some more research and adequately defend P2. :)

Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Epic self defeatage.

Explain. I'm not even sure defeatage is a word.

I think what he's getting a is that if our ignorance is that radical about God that you couldn't know whether God exists either. So, really only agnosticism would be reasonable.

At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.

Monistic idealism: the only substance(s) that exist are mind(s). Certainly it wouldn't be implausible to think on idealism mind(s) can exist without the body.

I'm not too sure about neutral monism as I believe the philosophy says that the only kind of substance(s) that exist are neither mental nor physical. Maybe a case can be made.

I'm just pointing out that the conclusion would not come easily at all even granting your most controversial premise. But I would hotly contest p2 in any case. :)

If you want to debate it you can always send me a challenge. :)

I read [your] dualism debate the other night (very impressive; it's kind of what inspired me to create this argument), and I would certainly want to challenge you on this, after I do some more research and adequately defend P2. :)

Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Something that seems to be impossible is both on the theist and atheist side. The atheists may think that the Existence of God is impossible, but I can say the same about the length of the universe. It is unprovable that it is infinite, and it is impossibly infinite. Therefore, when you see that even on this side of disbelief in God, there is something highly debatable, then you can say that just because the existence of God is also highly debatable or too hard to understand for some people, does not mean that God does nor exist.

I find it impossible to believe that there is not one who created everything. Everything is too good to prove Him wrong.